[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#34525: replace-regexp missing some matches
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#34525: replace-regexp missing some matches |
Date: |
Thu, 28 Feb 2019 19:41:12 +0200 |
> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 10:50:25 +0000
> Cc: daniel.lopez999@gmail.com, 34525@debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
>
> (i) Calculate ->position's in previous_interval and next_interval, as my
> tentative patch already does.
> (ii) Calculate the ->position's in update_interval, on moving to
> parents.
> (iii) Do away with update_interval, replacing it in syntax.c with
> previous/next_interval in while loops.
>
> At the moment, only (i) has been tried.
>
> Speed-wise, it seems not to make any difference in an optimised GNU
> build, though it did appear to be significantly (~4%) slower on an
> unoptimised build which scrolls through a C++ file with lots of
> templates. I don't think it's worth the effort to make a systematic
> speed comparison between the alternatives.
>
> (iv) Additionally, there is a cleanup wanted, where setting ->position
> in the chain of parents should be moved from update_syntax_table to
> find_interval.
>
> In (i), the convention for ->position would be that it is valid for the
> target interval together with all its parents. In (ii) and (iii), it
> would only be valid in the final target intervals found by navigation.
> I think this should be explicitly stated in a comment in struct
> interval.
>
> So, where do we go from here? If it were up to me, I would probably
> chose (i), simply because it's already been done, but I've no strong
> feelings over it.
I prefer not to do (i) because it has much wider implications than
needed. Either (ii) or (iii) are okay with me. The former seems to
be simpler, so I tend to favor it slightly.
- bug#34525: replace-regexp missing some matches, (continued)
- bug#34525: replace-regexp missing some matches, Alan Mackenzie, 2019/02/27
- bug#34525: replace-regexp missing some matches, Alan Mackenzie, 2019/02/27
- bug#34525: replace-regexp missing some matches, Stefan Monnier, 2019/02/27
- bug#34525: replace-regexp missing some matches, Alan Mackenzie, 2019/02/27
- bug#34525: replace-regexp missing some matches, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/02/27
- bug#34525: replace-regexp missing some matches, Alan Mackenzie, 2019/02/27
- bug#34525: replace-regexp missing some matches, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/02/27
- bug#34525: replace-regexp missing some matches, Alan Mackenzie, 2019/02/28
- bug#34525: replace-regexp missing some matches,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#34525: replace-regexp missing some matches, Alan Mackenzie, 2019/02/28
- bug#34525: replace-regexp missing some matches, Stefan Monnier, 2019/02/27
- bug#34525: replace-regexp missing some matches, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/02/27
- bug#34525: replace-regexp missing some matches, Alan Mackenzie, 2019/02/27
- bug#34525: replace-regexp missing some matches, Stefan Monnier, 2019/02/26
- bug#34525: replace-regexp missing some matches, Daniel Lopez, 2019/02/20
- bug#34525: replace-regexp missing some matches, Alan Mackenzie, 2019/02/22